Friday, January 03, 2014

Dialogue with an Anglican Historian on Heresy, Heretics (Particularly Arius), and the Relationship of Blasphemy to Heresy (vs. Dr. Edwin W. Tait)

By Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong

This all came about spontaneously on one of my Facebook threads. Edwin and I have engaged in many fun dialogues through the years, especially on the topic of development of doctrine. They always seem to end unresolved and hanging in the air, but they're enjoyable nonetheless. I always like shooting the breeze with academics. His words will be in blue. Paul Hoffer, a Catholic friend, also contributed a few comments. His words will be in green. Arius the heretic's words will be in red.

* * * * *

I don't think predestination debates have any practical importance to
the Christian faith or walk, but it's fun to argue about in the same
sense that various philosophical disputes are enjoyable diversions for
the mind.

Well, it was practically relevant for me for some years, because I taught at an evangelical college where my
predecessor had been fired for promulgating open theism, and a
well-known open theist philosopher was still professor emeritus with an
office across from my own (William Hasker). I've read some of his work
and had some conversations with him, partly in order to present the
issues fairly to my students and partly because I became interested
myself.

Glad to hear he was fired.

Well,
I'm not, because he wasn't violating anything in the institution's
statement of faith. And in general, I think Erasmus has been right all
along--it's better to refute heretics than suppress them. Truth has
nothing to fear. But that's yet another debate.

It's
not "suppressing" someone who believes and teaches things contrary to
an institution's beliefs. You called it "evangelical" and that means
something. That is called "orthodoxy."

I
think that an institution has the right to do this, and sometimes it
may be necessary. (Again, my problem in this particular case was that
the institution fired him because they were worried about his effect on
student enrollment, not because of a genuine
belief that he was a heretic by the standards of the institution.) But
yes, it is suppressing, because that voice won't be heard any more.
Academic institutions need a diversity of voices. Church-based
institutions face a necessary tension between this and the need to
preserve clarity about what the institution stands for. It's a difficult
issue and there are no easy answers. (The initial compromise in
Sanders' case was that he would not be teaching systematic theology
anymore.) But I'm never going to rejoice at someone being fired, unless
perhaps in really extreme cases. And empirically, I know that his being
fired helped rivet his ideas in the minds of his former students. It
discredited any arguments one could make against open theism.

Heresies
arise because there is some genuine problem in the existing orthodoxy
that needs to be resolved. Trying to cut off the debate ensures that the
problem will just fester endlessly, or indeed it gives moral legitimacy
to the heretical side and causes
it to triumph temporarily beyond its intrinsic merits. This is my big
problem with how the Catholic Church is handling the women's ordination
issue. The really interesting theological arguments have barely even
been raised.

not because of a genuine belief that he was a heretic by the standards of the institution

Then
it's not "evangelical": both things can't be true. "Open theism" is not
evangelicalism. But of course, evangelicalism is going more and more
liberal all the time, too . . . This is the problem with the rule of
faith in Protestantism. What is "liberal" today may be fashionably
orthodox tomorrow . . .

Academic institutions need a diversity of voices.

Christian
academic institutions don't need that. They need professors who have a
strong faith and who are orthodox according to how that is defined by
the institution.

Heresies arise because there is some genuine problem in the existing orthodoxy that needs to be resolved.

I
disagree. Developments arise for that reason, but heresies come from
rebellion and disobedience, and inability to accept received orthodoxy
and (for Catholics) apostolic tradition.

Trying to cut off the debate ensures that the problem will just fester endlessly

I
agree. We must debate and refute error, but hiring heretics in an
educational institution does not further that end. They are teaching
students things that are contrary
to the goals of the school . . . The students are not in a place to
debate the professors. They sit there like sitting ducks and take in the
heretical errors of the professor. That's what is so despicable about
it.

Again,
I'm not disputing the right of institutions to enforce orthodoxy when
that orthodoxy is clearly defined. For instance, I agree that there's a
huge problem when Catholic institutions have theology faculties where
there is in effect an alternative
"orthodoxy" which is blatantly opposed to Church teaching. And without
the right to fire individual dissenters, there's nothing to prevent this
happening. I'm arguing first that institutions cannot and should not
get rid of faculty members just because their views are controversial
and many people in the institution's supportive community (i.e.,
potential donors, parents and pastors of potential students, etc.) think
that the faculty member is a heretic. To do so is a blatant violation
of academic freedom, and that's what happened here. In the second place,
I'm arguing that standards of belief should be interpreted very
generously in this context. And I'm also arguing that there is a
legitimate place for faculty who don't agree with the standards of
belief at all, as long as there's clarity about their place in the
institution. (For instance, it would be inappropriate for a Catholic
institution to have a non-Catholic or a blatantly heretical Catholic
teaching an introduction to theology to first-year students, or teaching
the key systematic theology classes for majors. It would be appropriate
to have such folks on the faculty teaching their perspectives as part
of a vigorous culture of debate and discussion.)

Our
basic disagreement, I think, is about the nature of heresy. And I think
it explains why we often clash about the Reformation, apart from the
fact that I'm naturally more pedantic and concerned with "trees" than
you are, given my training as a specialist in Reformation history. We
agree that Protestantism is heretical. But I see Protestantism as a
reaction to genuine problems in orthodoxy as it had been defined up to
that point. I think that much of the time Protestants gave the wrong
answers (indeed, in important ways I think they made the existing
problems much worse, as with the monstrous invention of "forensic
justification"), and insofar as they gave the right answers those
answers were compatible with Catholic orthodoxy. But I'm much more
willing to see positive value in what they were doing than you are. And
the same would apply to how I'd view modern liberal Catholicism. It's a
response to real problems and it raises real concerns. Demonizing
liberals will lead to the same disasters that demonizing Protestants
did, even if this time around (thank God) no one gets killed.

Our basic disagreement, I think, is about the nature of heresy.

Okay:
what is it, and how can it be consistently defined? You don't think
Open Theism is heresy according to historic Protestantism, Anglicanism,
Catholicism, and Orthodoxy?

No,
that's not our disagreement. I meant that you see heresy just in terms
of "disobedience and rebellion," whereas I give it a more positive role
in the development of doctrine, because it always has a genuine
theological concern at its core. I am certainly
not arguing that open theism is orthodox, although I'm not sure
Protestants are in a good position to make that judgment. Open theism is
a reaction to Calvinism--it's an attempt to provide a consistent
philosophical basis for Arminianism. Given the Calvinist/Arminian
dichotomy and the way in which Calvinist assumptions have warped a lot
of "historic" Protestantism, I think that's an understandable response.
In other words, I'm not sure that open theism is any more heretical than
Calvinism, though I'm not going to make an argument of that. Also,
there are different versions of open theism. The Sanders/Hasker version,
which I encountered at Huntington, is terribly anthropomorphic, and is
basically a philosophical system built on the evangelical conviction
that one can have a personal relationship with God, and thus on a fairly
literal reading of personal/anthropomorphic language in the Bible. Greg
Boyd's version, which I would like to study further, is probably the
most orthodox, relatively speaking, but still very anthropomorphic. Tom
Oord's version is perhaps the most radical (of the versions known to me,
at least) and closest to process theology, but it raises a lot of
interesting issues (Oord goes beyond the other open theists by
suggesting not just that God has chosen to limit His knowledge but that
perhaps God's nature is constituted by self-emptying love, so that God
can't engage in any kind of coercion, including that which would be
implied in exhaustive foreknowledge of people's choices).

How
does, for example, the blasphemy of asserting that Jesus is a mere creature
[this is Arianism, folks] have "a genuine theological concern at its
core"? To assure that God (the Son) is not worshiped and adored as the
Father is? That's just . . . heresy and blasphemy. There is nothing good
in that. It rejected what was clearly revealed in Scripture and always
held in Christianity.Dave,
that's not historically true. I don't think any scholar of the fourth
century would claim that Arius "rejected what was clearly revealed in
Scripture and always held in Christianity." Arius' letter to the
Patriarch Alexander [ Link ] shows that he was concerned to maintain the historic orthodox teaching
that Jesus was the Son of God and was not just a mode in which God had
revealed Himself or somehow a part of God, making God composite. He was
upholding logos Christology, which was the historic mainstream position.
But he was making a claim (before the Son was begotten "he was not")
that went way beyond the historic orthodox position in his zeal to
uphold it. In fact, he was undercutting orthodoxy radically. But his
heresy wasn't obvious and didn't just proceed from some kind of depraved
insanity, though that's what the language of orthodox polemic said.
Lots of people had trouble seeing what was so heretical about this and
what was so different from orthodox "Logos Christology."

It's
harder, perhaps, to see something positive in the radical Arianism of
Eunomius late in the fourth century. But even he was pushing on some
remaining ambiguities in developing orthodoxy, forcing the Cappadocians
to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in ways that we have reason to be
grateful for today.

In
a way all I'm saying is the longstanding truism that heresies force the
orthodox to clarify things. What I'm saying that's different is that
since heretics generally have good intentions, the combination of their
good intentions and the positive effect of their heresies should affect
our attitude to them. It isn't simply a case of wicked people being used
by God for good purposes, but (most of the time, as far as I can see)
sincere Christians seeking a good end in the wrong way and ultimately
serving that good end, just not quite in the way they thought. Hence we
can be more patient with them than we used to be.

In a way all I'm saying is the longstanding truism that heresies force the orthodox to clarify things.

That's a different claim from what you made before. I agree with that.I
also agree that heresy and blasphemy often comes from a mix of
ignorance and good intentions. But I'm talking about the thing itself
(heresy), not the person, just as I do in my apologetics today. Luther
was well-intentioned, likable, said lots of good stuff, etc. At the same
time he taught a lot of rebellious, worthless rotgut. It's a mixed bag.
It's a lot less mixed with something as atrocious as Arianism, which
is not Christian, as Lutheranism is.

Maybe
Arius was a fun guy to have a beer with. I don't care. That's neither
here nor there. I deal with the theological opinions . . .

Once
again we have a fundamental difference of definition. One who denies
the Trinity (I say) is not a Christian at all. They don't even accept
the Nicene Creed, for heaven's sake. That's why both Mormons and
Jehovah's Witnesses are not. You act as if any theist at all is a
Christian. By that criteria, both Jews and Muslims (as well as all these
non-trinitarian heretics) are in the fold. That's an awful big tent. :-)Well, by your definition there were no Christians before the fourth century, since the Nicene Creed didn't exist :-)
I agree that those who deny the Trinity are heretics in a manner
fundamentally different from those who deny, say, the Real Presence, and
if you want to express that by saying that they aren't Christians at
all, I won't object as long as we're clear on what we mean by
"Christians" in this context and that this isn't the only historically
meaningful definition of the word. But again, read the letter of Arius.
Unless the man was simply lying through his teeth, he's clearly working
within the framework of previously defined orthodoxy. It's not about
being nice or not nice--it's about being part of the "argument extended
throughout time" that is the Christian tradition and sincerely desiring
to further that conversation in ways that will glorify God and bring
people to union with God. There are good reasons to think that both
Arius and Luther had those intentions. As I said the first time, they
had genuine theological concerns. (Modalism was still a danger in Arius'
time, and in fact some of the folks who sided with Athanasius and
upheld the homoousios could be legitimately accused of modalism.) They
were trying to uphold the faith, and given their contexts it is easy to
understand why they made the mistaken choices they did in their attempt
to do so. As a result of their work and that of the orthodox who opposed
them, we now have a clearer understanding of the faith. Arius and
Luther aren't in the same category, of course. Arius is much more
radically heretical and there's much less positive one can learn from
his work.

Arius
actually became a heretic by opposing another heresy-Sabellanism or
Patripassionism. He erred by over-emphasizing the incomparability and
majestic solitariness of God by under-emphasizing the nature and
substance of the Logos and by extension the Holy Spirit. His biggest problem was that he could not understand the meaning of the word "begot".

We need to be careful in not equating heresy with blasphemy or apostasy. They are not synonymous.

I
agree, but relegating Jesus to a mere creature is certainly objectively
blasphemy, whether intended or not (it usually isn't intended as such).
The act of turning God into non-God is blasphemous as well as
heretical.

I
think much of heresy is going to the extreme: either in irrational or
hyper-rational reaction to an orthodox tenet, or in extreme
counter-reaction to another heresy. Thus,
Monophysitism is arguably the other extreme of Nestorianism. The latter
emphasized Jesus' human nature to the detriment of His divine nature,
whereas the former made the opposite mistake.

The
modern definition of blasphemy as contained in the Catechism 2148 would
seem to exclude Arius as his theology did not consist of uttering
against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or
defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing
in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. Arius
was trying to be the opposite of blasphemous. His thought was certainly
heretical, but he was not attempting to be contemptuous of God.

Dave, you are certainly right though about monophysitism. All heresies involving the Trinity fall into two categories:

1. Exaggerating the notion of unity and eliminate persons in the Trinity. 2. Exaggerating the notion of Trinity and deny the unity of persons.

Is it not "speaking ill of God" [the Son] to deny that He is God?
I can think of few things more insulting to God than to deny that He is
Who He is. It's like the flip side of idolatry. That makes something
not God into a god; whereas Arius makes God into not-God or a mere
lesser "god."

If
Arius thought Jesus wasn't God, he wasn't trying to blaspheme Him
(quite obviously); yet it is objectively blasphemous, because He is God.
Thus He blasphemes by claiming that Jesus was created, which makes Him a
creature on our level, not the eternally
existent God. That's objectively blasphemous (saying things of God that
aren't true), if not subjectively. It's a lot like the distinction
between mortal and venial sin.

St.
John Chrysostom said it was blasphemy to assert that God could change
(which His supposedly being created or having a beginning is an instance
of):

. . . He is Omnipotent as long as He continues to be God. But if He admit of change, change for the
worse, how could He be God? for change is far from that simple Nature.
Wherefore the Prophet saith, “They all shall wax old as doth a garment,
and as a vesture shalt Thou roll them up, and they shall be changed; but
Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.” ( Ps. cii. 27 , LXX.)
For that Essence is superior to all change. There is nothing better
than He, to which He might advance and reach.. . . let the blasphemy
return upon the heads of those who utter it. (Homily XI on John, v. 1:14; NPNF1-14)

Likewise, St. Cyril of Alexandria says it is blasphemy to deny "Mother of God" and hence deny Jesus' divinity:

.
. . if the opponents say that the holy Virgin ought to be called in no
wise mother of God, but mother of Christ, they blaspheme openly and
drive away Christ from being God and Son: for if they believe that He is
really God, in that the Only-Begotten has been made as we, why do they
shudder at calling her mother of God, who bare Him, I mean after the
flesh? (That Christ is One; LFC47)

St. Basil the Great specifically asserts that Arius blasphemed:

One
of those who have caused me great sorrow is Eustathius of Sebasteia in
Lesser Armenia; formerly a disciple of Arius, and a follower of him at
the time when he flourished in Alexandria, and concocted his infamous
blasphemies against the Only-begotten, . . .(Letter #263 to the Western Bishops, 2-3; NPNF2-8)

Dave,
to be fair, Arius didn't say that Jesus was a "mere creature"--indeed
he very carefully said the opposite: " a creature, but not as one of the
creatures." What the heck does that mean? Well, that's the problem with
"original" Arianism. It was examined
and found hopelessly inadequate, because the concept of "a creature but
not as one of the creatures" was incompatible with an orthodox
understanding of the relationship between God and creation. Ironically
given the frequent charges that the Trinity is pagan, it's Arius' view
that coincides better with the general pagan understanding of the
divine--an inaccessible God with degrees of heavenly beings mediating
our access to Him. The orthodox view as expounded by Athanasius and
later the Cappadocians taught that there's an infinite distance between
God and the beings God has created out of nothing, and no possible
half-way point between the two. Hence, the mediator can't be
half-and-half but must be 100% human and 100% divine. That's a
theological breakthrough guided by the Holy Spirit--simply from the
point of view of intellectual history, it's brilliant and revolutionary.

The
Two Natures of Christ was already quite implicit (if not explicit) in
the "kenosis" of Philippians 2:5-8 and arguably other passages. Highly
developed later, of course, but present in kernel from the beginning:
precisely as Newmanian development asserts:

Philippians 2:5-8 (RSV) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Saying
Jesus is a creature at all: in any sense, is already heretical and
blasphemous. If Arius was confused even in his own mind, what in the
world he meant, what else is new with heretics? Their errors always
spring from mental confusion, whatever else we may say about them.

Right.
When I said "revolutionary" I'm talking about the intellectual
formulation--the combination that emerges by the end of the fourth
century of divine infinity, creation ex nihilo, and the existing,
hitherto rather undefined faith that Jesus is both
human and divine. And Dave, the problem here is that you aren't taking
the intellectual context of the ancient world seriously enough. You have
to try to imagine a world full of gradations of spiritual beings
shading up to an unimaginably distant (but not infinite) supreme Deity.
That's the world Jews, pagans, and to a great extent early Christians
all believed in. But Christians had this weird faith in Jesus as Lord
and the Son of God (combined with the existing weirdness of the Jewish
refusal to worship any god but the supreme God) to mess up this
culturally accepted picture. Arius, without realizing it, was watering
down the faith with culturally accepted notions, just as heretics have
done from then till now and are still doing
But out of this came greater clarity--not just the reaffirmation of
what was already obvious, but something that was genuinely new in terms
of its intellectual formulation, as the use of the hitherto suspect
"homoousios" showed (as I'm sure you know, the term had up to then been
used only by heretics). The great tragedy of the Reformation is that
there was no Athanasius. Or rather, he was on the wrong side. . . .

The letter of Arius cited above makes quite clear that this is extreme heresy and blasphemy alike:

Our
faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee,
Blessed Pope, is this:--We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone
Everlasting,
alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone
Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all,
unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and
New Testament;

He
shows that he knows what God's attributes are, but by making Jesus a
creature (as though this is what "begotten" means), in that very act he
contradistinguishes Him from the Father, so that all the characteristics
above do not apply to Jesus.

who
begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has
made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance,
but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable
and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the
creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten;

Jesus
in Arianism stands between God and men (I think that is all he means by
"not as one of the creatures"). He was created, but then the Father
uses Him to create everything else, etc.

at the will of God, created before times and ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, . . .

The
Bible plainly states that the Son has life and being in Himself (much
of the point of John 1, among many other passages). He doesn't derive it
from the Father.

Arius is also confused about the monarchy of the Father, thinking this somehow makes Jesus less than God.

So
far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all
things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He
is above Him, as being His God, and before Him.

This garbage is very painful to read . . .

Of
course, heresies cause a more precise formulation of faith, as
Augustine stressed. I totally agree with that. But you seem to be making
Arius out to be "better" than he was. Heresy also stems from a loss of
faith and loss of a fully Christian notion
of mystery. Basically, they can't figure stuff out according to
orthodoxy so they go their own way and come up with the various errors
of heresy. Like you said, he didn't "get" what "begotten of God" meant.
That is the basic root of the heresy in all likelihood. Arians don't
grasp stuff like "the father is greater than I."

I do not disagree [with] your theological definition of blasphemy. I am using the term in its more modern connotation.

However, if you look at the little bit of Arius' writing that actually has survived, he would certainly demand that we adore
and reverence Jesus because of what the Father bestowed upon Him by
virtue of His adoption as His Son. Because Jesus was "begotten", Arius
argued that the Son’s nature was not capable of moral change as a result
of a gift from God. (Different from his disciples) God foresaw that
the Son was going to be good and granted Him merits or the grace
necessary to avoid evil in advance and deprived Him of the ability to
earn merit. At His creation, the Son was adopted by God, given the name
Son and the divine glory that comes with that name. The Son’s adoption
was different from ours in that He can not sin, we still can. Arius
did not claim that Jesus was not divine, he claimed that Jesus' was
created divine.

That's
what he says, Paul, but he's confused. Being created is not a thing
that is said about God. It denies His immutability and self-sufficiency
and self-existence, which are of the very essence of God. So Arius'
thinking there
is some "middle position" between God and man is complete nonsense:
rationally and biblically. Jesus becomes, in effect, an angel at best.

2 comments:

Nice debate! Question: I'm so used to coming to your blog to do research on Catholic topics and for some strange reason, the last week(?) the "search" window is not working. Did you remove the "search" capability?

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).